• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

Firing

Fire at will: The last straw doesn’t have to be the same for all employees

12/04/2009

Some employees who break rules believe they’re immune from firing if someone else committed the same infraction and didn’t get fired. That’s simply not true. What may be a firing offense for one employee doesn’t have to be the last straw for every other employee. The key is to document—at the time—why you made the decision so you can later explain the difference between the two situations.

Discipline ‘protected’ employee—but document why you treated similar offenses differently

12/03/2009

When it comes to discipline, the primary rule is to treat similar rule violations alike. That means you’ll have to punish all kinds of people for misbehaving, even if they’re members of a protected class. Don’t hesitate to do so if their behavior warrants it.

Noose, slurs lead women to sue for discrimination

12/03/2009

Two former employees of Trey Industries are suing the commercial construction company, claiming they were fired after complaining about racism they experienced while working at a Marathon Oil facility in Texas City.

After the deluge: Hurricane Ike washes up an age bias lawsuit

12/03/2009

A former employee of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston has filed a lawsuit alleging he was fired last year because of his age. Thomas Galan claims he was let go at the age of 53 after Hurricane Ike forced UTMB to temporarily shut down in September 2008 and lay off hundreds of employees.

OK to terminate employee who is psychologically unfit to perform stressful job

12/02/2009

When stress is a built-in part of the job, it stands to reason that sound mental health is a prerequisite. Someone whose psychological disorder interferes with the ability to perform such a job isn’t qualified and can be terminated.

Words matter—and can come back to haunt employers sued for age discrimination

12/01/2009

In difficult economic times like these, employers try everything they can to wring greater productivity and profits from employees and work processes. It’s not easy. There’s often resistance from employees who have grown accustomed to doing things the same way they always have. And some of the most intransigent of those employees may be your older workers—and that means potential for legal trouble.

When religious needs conflict with schedule, shift swaps may be reasonable accommodation

11/25/2009

Many employers make it easy for employees to swap shifts if they consider their hours undesirable or inconvenient. Employers may do this by preparing the schedule well ahead of time and posting it where employees can easily see it. That makes it easy for management to know who is swapping with whom and to approve swaps arranged between employees. A shift-swap policy may also be all you need to win a religious accommodation lawsuit.

Firing a long-time employee? Good documentation beats age bias claim

11/24/2009

Employees who have worked for their employers for decades often assume that if they are fired, it must be because of their advancing age. Then they sue, alleging age discrimination. Because they have been employed for so long, they usually don’t have any trouble showing that they were qualified for their job. That puts the burden on employers to prove they had a sound reason for the termination.

Frivolous case filed too late? Too bad

11/24/2009

Judges generally bend over backward to give leeway to employees who represent themselves in court. But now some judges have begun showing more sympathy to the plight of employers that have to defend against those lawsuits—which often turn out to be frivolous.

Dozing at the desk? Sleepy on the shop floor? You may need to offer ADA accommodations

11/20/2009

Some disabilities require the use of medications with side effects. If one of those is sleepiness and fatigue, employers may have to accommodate those. That’s why it’s crucial for you to begin the interactive process as soon as you learn that an employee is having trouble because of the medication he uses. The worst thing you can do is to simply terminate him because he nodded off.